Mega Merged: REX Recruitment/Cadetship and Working for REX
And recent changes to the aeronautical experience required for the issue of the ATPL have provided a more defined path to the LHS of a LCAOC RPT >5700kg. Prior to that, the only way you could log ICUS from the RHS was for the attainment of a higher grade of pilots licence (ICAO Annex1). As the command hours required for the ATPL were 250 hours of which 150 may be ICUS, then once you had logged those hours, and had met that requrement for the ATPL, you were not permitted to log anymore under ICAO Annex 1. As a result there was a barrier to the candidate of some additional 250 hours to satisfy the requirements of the LCAOC (500 hours Multi-Command under the IFR).
Now that the ATPL has been increased to a requirement for 500 hours command, the candidate can now log ICUS from the RHS to bring him/her up to the magic 500 hours, this now being the requirement for the attainment of a higher grade of pilots licence (ATPL). With the reduction of the non ICUS component to 70 hours (that being attained by the CPL syllibus), the path is now clear for cadets to move over to the LHS when all the other criteria are met.
Slicker than snot!
And a definite reduction in the credibility of the Aussie ATPL!
Now that the ATPL has been increased to a requirement for 500 hours command, the candidate can now log ICUS from the RHS to bring him/her up to the magic 500 hours, this now being the requirement for the attainment of a higher grade of pilots licence (ATPL). With the reduction of the non ICUS component to 70 hours (that being attained by the CPL syllibus), the path is now clear for cadets to move over to the LHS when all the other criteria are met.
Slicker than snot!
And a definite reduction in the credibility of the Aussie ATPL!
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Prior to that, the only way you could log ICUS from the RHS was for the attainment of a higher grade of pilots licence (ICAO Annex1).
“2.1.9.4 The holder of a pilot licence, when acting as pilot-in-command under supervision, shall be entitled to be credited in full with this flight time towards the total flight time required for a higher grade of pilot licence.”
It does not limit what seat the ICUS is conducted in, nor does it limit it only for the attainment of a higher licence.
“Pilot-in-command under supervision. Co-pilot performing, under the supervision of the pilot-in-command, the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command, in accordance with a method of supervision acceptable to the Licensing Authority.”
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
As the command hours required for the ATPL were 250 hours of which 150 may be ICUS, then once you had logged those hours, and had met that requrement for the ATPL, you were not permitted to log anymore under ICAO Annex 1.
"a) 500 hours as pilot-in-command under supervision or 250 hours, either as pilot-in-command, or made up by not less than 70 hours as pilot-in-command and the necessary additional flight time as pilot-in-command under supervision;"
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
As a result there was a barrier to the candidate of some additional 250 hours to satisfy the requirements of the LCAOC (500 hours Multi-Command under the IFR).
The actual changes to the Australian CARs and Annex 1 had to do with the multi-crew pilots licence (MPL), not some special means for cadets at Rex who get issued with a CPL and a MECIR.
Thanks for the "forensic" reply swh. By the way, do you work for CASA?
Your first point regarding para 2.1.9.4 is interpreted by you differently from it's intent. The logging of ICUS from the RHS is not mentioned in this para! To assume that this allows the logging of ICUS from either seat is just that, an assumption, and I will add an incorrect one. To this end, this assumption ignores the specific mention of Co-pilot time logging in Para 2.1.9.3
Furthermore, if any Co-pilot engaged in RPT are able to log ICUS from the RHS Cart' blanch, as alluded by you under Annex1, then why did the Air Transport Operations Group in CASA make such an effort to formalise this practice in a proposal back in 2007. A proposal I might add, they made a complete B@lls up of! As far as the requirement to perform all the duties of the PIC, the ATOG proposal attempted to sidestep several critical PIC functions (taxiing the aircraft for one), and made no mention of the normal Captain's duties, which differ quite widely from F/O duties in most companies. In reality, to allow the practice, the candidate must be under the supervision of a suitably qualified Check and/or Training Captain, with the candidate sitting in the LHS, otherwise All the normal duties of the Captain cannot be performed. This is the reason the flawed ATOG proposal collapsed, and this is the reason that REX only conduct ICUS from the LHS under the supervision of a suitably qualified Check and/or Training Captain!
The 500 hour Multi-Command under the IFR was a barrier, make no mistake. As far as Hazelton airlines were concerned, there was never a situation where a Captain was appointed for ops in aircraft above 5700kg without meeting the Min Req's of the AOC! As far as the other airlines you mentioned, if they possesed a HCAOC, then the 500 hours did not apply in any case!
As far as the recent changes to the ATPL are concerned, if not to satisfy the lowering experience levels in the cockpits of LCAP AOC ops, then why change it? And don't tell me it's for the MPL. That licence doesn't exist yet, and the new requirements of the ATPL make no mention of a concession for such an intergrated and specific course! Coincidently, the new requirements of the ATPL fit exactly the progression (hours wise) for Cadets employed by carriers with a LOWCAP AOC. Mmmm... IMHO you are either lacking a healthy level of scepticism, are impossibly niave for someone with any experience in the industry, or you have a certain agenda?
Have a nice day.
Your first point regarding para 2.1.9.4 is interpreted by you differently from it's intent. The logging of ICUS from the RHS is not mentioned in this para! To assume that this allows the logging of ICUS from either seat is just that, an assumption, and I will add an incorrect one. To this end, this assumption ignores the specific mention of Co-pilot time logging in Para 2.1.9.3
Furthermore, if any Co-pilot engaged in RPT are able to log ICUS from the RHS Cart' blanch, as alluded by you under Annex1, then why did the Air Transport Operations Group in CASA make such an effort to formalise this practice in a proposal back in 2007. A proposal I might add, they made a complete B@lls up of! As far as the requirement to perform all the duties of the PIC, the ATOG proposal attempted to sidestep several critical PIC functions (taxiing the aircraft for one), and made no mention of the normal Captain's duties, which differ quite widely from F/O duties in most companies. In reality, to allow the practice, the candidate must be under the supervision of a suitably qualified Check and/or Training Captain, with the candidate sitting in the LHS, otherwise All the normal duties of the Captain cannot be performed. This is the reason the flawed ATOG proposal collapsed, and this is the reason that REX only conduct ICUS from the LHS under the supervision of a suitably qualified Check and/or Training Captain!
The 500 hour Multi-Command under the IFR was a barrier, make no mistake. As far as Hazelton airlines were concerned, there was never a situation where a Captain was appointed for ops in aircraft above 5700kg without meeting the Min Req's of the AOC! As far as the other airlines you mentioned, if they possesed a HCAOC, then the 500 hours did not apply in any case!
As far as the recent changes to the ATPL are concerned, if not to satisfy the lowering experience levels in the cockpits of LCAP AOC ops, then why change it? And don't tell me it's for the MPL. That licence doesn't exist yet, and the new requirements of the ATPL make no mention of a concession for such an intergrated and specific course! Coincidently, the new requirements of the ATPL fit exactly the progression (hours wise) for Cadets employed by carriers with a LOWCAP AOC. Mmmm... IMHO you are either lacking a healthy level of scepticism, are impossibly niave for someone with any experience in the industry, or you have a certain agenda?
Have a nice day.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Your first point regarding para 2.1.9.4 is interpreted by you differently from it's intent. The logging of ICUS from the RHS is not mentioned in this para! To assume that this allows the logging of ICUS from either seat is just that, an assumption, and I will add an incorrect one. To this end, this assumption ignores the specific mention of Co-pilot time logging in Para 2.1.9.3
The classic example is for the helicopter, where by normal convention the PIC normally sits in the RHS, people do log ICUS in helicopters under CAR 5.40 and CAO 40.3.0 Para 7.6.
All ICUS flying is done under supervision of the PIC assigned by the operator, any other crew member other than the PIC is a co-pilot. ICUS is co-pilot time, it is not command time.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Furthermore, if any Co-pilot engaged in RPT are able to log ICUS from the RHS Cart' blanch, as alluded by you under Annex1, then why did the Air Transport Operations Group in CASA make such an effort to formalise this practice in a proposal back in 2007.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
This is the reason the flawed ATOG proposal collapsed, and this is the reason that REX only conduct ICUS from the LHS under the supervision of a suitably qualified Check and/or Training Captain!
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
As far as Hazelton airlines were concerned, there was never a situation where a Captain was appointed for ops in aircraft above 5700kg without meeting the Min Req's of the AOC!
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
And don't tell me it's for the MPL. That licence doesn't exist yet, and the new requirements of the ATPL make no mention of a concession for such an intergrated and specific course!
For the Australian incorporation of the MP(A)L see CAO 40.1.8 and CAR 5.206, the first students were trained by Alteon. Australian needed to go down the MPL track not only to keep in pace with ICAO Annex 1, also some of the biggest export countries of Australian trained pilots, being Singapore and China are looking for MPL training.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Coincidently, the new requirements of the ATPL fit exactly the progression (hours wise) for Cadets employed by carriers with a LOWCAP AOC.
The low and high capacity AOCs delineation is not ICAO, it is an Australian difference, Annex 6 just looks at commercial air transport, helicopters, and GA.
And around and around we go swh!
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Interestingly enough though, if the current political push gains any momentum, the whole notion of logging ICUS (from the RHS anyway) will become more or less academic!
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Interestingly enough though, if the current political push gains any momentum, the whole notion of logging ICUS (from the RHS anyway) will become more or less academic!
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
See CASACom 01/09/0 "PILOT IN COMMAND UNDER SUPERVISION – LOGGING OF TIME" http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...91117/0901.pdf
Some little gems are in that document which prove you are wrong.
"A common interpretation of PICUS suggests the accumulation of command time can only occur while under supervision of a ‘training captain’. This interpretation is not correct and must cease being applied."
"1. Within CAR 5.40 and CAO 82.3 there is no reference to the need for a ‘training captain’ however described, to act in the supervisory role during PICUS. A supervisory captain is one who has been specifically assigned for the flight by the operator, with the candidate PICUS pilot holding a command endorsement and a command instrument rating."
"4. PICUS flight time may be acquired in a co-pilot’s seat, provided all pilot-in-command functions, except taxiing, can be performed from a co-pilot’s seat, either directly or by instruction."
"6. Prior to commencing PICUS for a co-pilot, a candidate would need to have completed the command endorsement training, co-pilot line flying and been ‘checked to line’ as a competent co-pilot.
7. In those instances where an operator wishes to appoint a direct entry captain, with insufficient multi-engine command time, the candidate pilot would be trained and checked to line as a competent captain. The candidate PICUS captain would then require rostering with another company captain until sufficient PICUS hours were accrued."
Disagree with CASA swh, absolutely, and not just because they're CASA either.
What you have quoted is a direct copy of the original 2007 ATOG proposal! A proposal!!!
I especially like the bit about "...provided all (my bolding) pilot-in command functions,except taxiing", (I love that bit) "can be performed from a co-pilot's seat, either directly or by instruction"
Putting taxiing aside, one of the functions of the pilot in command at REX is the starting of engines. Only qualified Captains or candidates under the instruction of Check and/or Training Captains are allowed to start engines. Line captains are not permitted to allow anyone (except themselves of course) to start engines QED!
This is just one example of why the ATOG proposal, that you spuriously put up as regulation has not been applied. It was a cynical and self serving attempt to justify a practice for the benefit of CASA's mates in the industry, and it was exposed as the flawed document it is! Numerous other examples of "Pilot-in Command" duties that are not transferable to a First Officer in the RHS are also the reason this practice has not been adopted by REX. If REX could make it happen, they would. CASA's incompetance in this area has probably assured that this is unlikely to ever happen!
As I said, around and around we go.
Have a nice day.
What you have quoted is a direct copy of the original 2007 ATOG proposal! A proposal!!!
I especially like the bit about "...provided all (my bolding) pilot-in command functions,except taxiing", (I love that bit) "can be performed from a co-pilot's seat, either directly or by instruction"
Putting taxiing aside, one of the functions of the pilot in command at REX is the starting of engines. Only qualified Captains or candidates under the instruction of Check and/or Training Captains are allowed to start engines. Line captains are not permitted to allow anyone (except themselves of course) to start engines QED!
This is just one example of why the ATOG proposal, that you spuriously put up as regulation has not been applied. It was a cynical and self serving attempt to justify a practice for the benefit of CASA's mates in the industry, and it was exposed as the flawed document it is! Numerous other examples of "Pilot-in Command" duties that are not transferable to a First Officer in the RHS are also the reason this practice has not been adopted by REX. If REX could make it happen, they would. CASA's incompetance in this area has probably assured that this is unlikely to ever happen!
As I said, around and around we go.
Have a nice day.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
What you have quoted is a direct copy of the original 2007 ATOG proposal! A proposal!!!
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Putting taxiing aside, one of the functions of the pilot in command at REX is the starting of engines. Only qualified Captains or candidates under the instruction of Check and/or Training Captains are allowed to start engines. Line captains are not permitted to allow anyone (except themselves of course) to start engines QED!
Nothing requires the PIC to occupy a pilot station, in larger operations, check captains are often in the jump seat, with a captain and first officer in the pilot stations. It is totally possible in such a situation for the first officer to log ICUS in the RHS, and the captain co-pilot time in the LHS, and the check captain command time from the jump seat if that what the operator designated.
A co-pilot can state an instruction to the PIC, e.g. "start engine 1". A person conducting ICUS does not physically have to manipulate every control, switch, dial etc.
It is also very common in many airlines that only the captain sets the thrust, and has their hands on the thrust levers until V1. It is totally acceptable for the purpose of conducting ICUS for the first officer to instruct the captain to "set thrust" if that is their SOP. Other examples, setting the bugs on the left hand instruments, DH on the radalt, QNH/standard on the standby, flight control and brake checks.
Again, your statements are not supported by the law.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
This is just one example of why the ATOG proposal, that you spuriously put up as regulation has not been applied.
"The CASA Communication (CASACom) publication, previously known as the Air Transport Communication (ATCom), has been developed to allow the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to promptly communicate identified safety and operational issues to all Air Operator Certifcate holders."
There are 13 CASAComs currently published, all available online on the CASA website. CASACom 01/09/0 is a controlled document, and "remains current until re-issued, withdrawn or superseded."
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
It was a cynical and self serving attempt to justify a practice for the benefit of CASA's mates in the industry, and it was exposed as the flawed document it is!
It is also very common in many airlines that only the captain sets the thrust, and has their hands on the thrust levers until V1
You can hardly call it ICUS if you delegate your command decisions to the Captain.
You know it's interesting swh, that the original ATOG proposal didn't have the phrase "or by instruction" in it when originally proposed. Just one area where the proposal needed to be "massaged" in order to get it past the scrutineers! You didn't write it did you?
You postulate that CASA have got it right. Well if they have in fact got it right, then why aren't REX employing this system now? Why are REX sitting their command candidates in the LHS for up to 400 hours, because they have no pre-existing command experience. Wouldn't it be easier to simply have them log the ICUS from the RHS and not tie up a training Captain untill such time as their minimum requirement for the training component comes up
Despite what other airlines do (HCAOC, quite different you know), this is after all a REX thread!
You postulate that CASA have got it right
. Well if they have in fact got it right, then why aren't REX employing this system now? Why are REX sitting their command candidates in the LHS for up to 400 hours, because they have no pre-existing command experience. Wouldn't it be easier to simply have them log the ICUS from the RHS and not tie up a training Captain untill such time as their minimum requirement for the training component comes upDespite what other airlines do (HCAOC, quite different you know), this is after all a REX thread!
Originally Posted by rmcdonal
This is because the Captain is the one who has to initiate the rejected T/O, if you were logging ICUS you would be in command and have to make that call yourself.
“FLIGHT time means:
(a) in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft — the total time from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing;”
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Well if they have in fact got it right, then why aren't REX employing this system now?
The regulator provides the framework for which crew gain the necessary qualifications and experience, however that is the minimum regulatory requirement.
The internal minimum experience levels for crews often have more restrictive requirements set by customers and insurance companies, these are internal commercial arrangements, they are not regulatory requirements.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Why are REX sitting their command candidates in the LHS for up to 400 hours, because they have no pre-existing command experience.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Wouldn't it be easier to simply have them log the ICUS from the RHS and not tie up a training Captain untill such time as their minimum requirement for the training component comes up
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
Despite what other airlines do (HCAOC, quite different you know), this is after all a REX thread!
You honestly think a few extra seats on a DHC8 makes any difference in the requirements for conducting and logging ICUS over a SF34 ?
The high capacity/low capacity is just another red herring.
Nothing requires the PIC to occupy a pilot station, in larger operations, check captains are often in the jump seat,
I conduct checks from the J/S, and have been checked from there for the last 20 years.
At all times under those circustances, the pilot in the LHS is the PIC.
Originally Posted by Wizofoz
Not correct
CAR 224 does not require the PIC to occupy a pilot station, it only requires that an “operator shall designate one pilot to act as pilot in command”.
For your operation, the person in the LHS is the PIC as that is what your operator designated.
Do you think in a situation where one were to reject a takeoff and shutdown without going flying, the crew actually be eligible to log any FLIGHT time ?
“FLIGHT time means:
(a) in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft — the total time from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing;”
“FLIGHT time means:
(a) in the case of a heavier-than-air aircraft — the total time from the moment at which the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking-off until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing;”
Originally Posted by rmcdonal
Yes, if you taxi for the purpose of T/O but never achieve it you have still moved for the purpose.
What would be the airborne and landing times be in the MR, and the number of cycles ?
So in your world you just ignore the "until the moment at which it comes to rest after landing"
What would be the airborne and landing times be in the MR, and the number of cycles ?
All of the above is academic when you consider that if you had rejected and the Capitan made the call then you were never In Command any way. ICUS is not selective, you can't say I will log ICUS for the cruise but not the Take off.
Gidday rmcdonal.
We're probably beating our heads against a wall with this bloke. The continual quotation of the "Regs" and one man's interpretation of what they mean will ensure that this debate goes around in ever increasing circles. Having said that, swh is entitled to his opinion and we wouldn't even be having this debate without it, but you are a bit of a lonely beacon here mate!
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that CASA intends/intended to allow the logging of ICUS cart blanch' from the RHS with this drivel that apparently passes for legislation. In Command Under Supervision? but in reality without any Supervision, not structured at least! Doesn't necessarily mean that they have got it right. And I suspect REX aren't totally convinced of this either.
We're probably beating our heads against a wall with this bloke. The continual quotation of the "Regs" and one man's interpretation of what they mean will ensure that this debate goes around in ever increasing circles. Having said that, swh is entitled to his opinion and we wouldn't even be having this debate without it, but you are a bit of a lonely beacon here mate!
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that CASA intends/intended to allow the logging of ICUS cart blanch' from the RHS with this drivel that apparently passes for legislation. In Command Under Supervision? but in reality without any Supervision, not structured at least! Doesn't necessarily mean that they have got it right. And I suspect REX aren't totally convinced of this either.
Originally Posted by rmcdonal
0.0 and 0 (maybe 1, some aircraft pressurise a bit when you apply power for take-off). MR time is not logged in my log book so it makes no difference.
If a pilot were to log such an event, an audit of the pilots logbook against the MR would then show an inconsistency. The MR would show no flight time, no cycles, and it would no doubt explain why there was a rejected takeoff (i.e. a defect) for further investigation.
Larger airlines often have out, off, on, and in times automatically transmitted to their flight and duty time database via ACARS, so the company computer logbook for the pilot(s) would also be inconsistent with a pilots own logbook if one were to log such an event.
Some airlines even have their pay system linked into this as well as the pilot pay is also sometimes linked to flight time. The pilots would receive no pay for a rejected takeoff and a return to the gate to shutdown, as no flight was performed.
Originally Posted by rmcdonal
All of the above is academic when you consider that if you had rejected and the Capitan made the call then you were never In Command any way.
Originally Posted by rmcdonal
ICUS is not selective, you can't say I will log ICUS for the cruise but not the Take off.
Originally Posted by KRUSTY 34
The continual quotation of the "Regs" and one man's interpretation of what they mean will ensure that this debate goes around in ever increasing circles.
It goes around in circles as you ignore the law, and sprout factors which are nothing but red herrings.
E.g. which law states /does not state
that ICUS can only be undertaken in aeroplanes
where a PIC must sit (where does the PIC sit in a balloon ? )
that ICUS cannot be logged in the RHS (the normal PIC seat in a helicopter)
that ICUS cannot be logged in private operations
that ICUS cannot be logged in aerial work operations
that ICUS cannot be logged in low capacity RPT
that ICUS cannot be logged in high capacity RPT
It is obvious to me from the snippets of the Rex manuals you have related to :
• that Rex as an operator does facilitate ICUS (with conditions)
• that Rex as an operator does allow co-pilots to sit in the LHS or RHS (with conditions)
• that Rex as an operator does allow the PIC to sit in the LHS or RHS (with conditions)
So even you own previous claims have been rebutted by the Rex manuals.